Paper · 2008 · Ghana Journal of Agricultural Science

Assessment of yield losses due to early and late leaf spots of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)

S K Nutsugah; C Oti-Boateng; F K Tsigbey; et al.

7
claims
17
verbatim quotes
6
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Early leaf spot (Cercospora arachidicola) and late leaf spot (sporidium personatum) are major limiting factors to groundnut productivity in northern Ghana. Fourteen groundnut entries were evaluated for two seasons (2003 and 2004) at Nyankpala with and without tebuconazole fungicide application. The objective of this study was to determine the yield losses due to combined attack of both diseases, with and without using tebuconazole (Folicur 3.6F) at 0.22 kg a.i. ha-1. The experiments were established in a split-plot design with three replications. Disease rating and pod yield were recorded at harvest maturity. Yield losses varied considerably, depending on entry and its yield potential. Pod yield losses due to both diseases ranged from 9.7 to 81.2 per cent in 2003, and from 19.5 to 65.9 per cent in 2004 when yield of protected entries was compared with yield of unprotected entries. The application of fungicide was effective in controlling leaf spots and improved pod yields across the two seasons. Some entries treated with fungicide produced pod yield of 1,860 to 2,081 kg ha-1, which is more than 2 to 2½-fold increase over present average yields in Ghana. Based on the high yield losses, chemical control and host-plant resistance options for managing both diseases in the north are recommended to enhance groundnut production. La tache à feuilles précoce (Cercospora arachidicola) et la tache à feille tardice (Cercosporidium personatum) sont des facteurs contraignants majeurs à la productivité d\'arachide dans le nord du Ghana. Quartorze variétés d\'arachide étaient évaluées pour deux saisons (2003 et 2004) à Nyankpala avec ou sans application de fongicide. Le but de ce travail de recherche était de déterminer les pertes de rendement en raison d\'attaque combinée des deux maladies en utilsant tébuconazole (Folicur 3.6F) à 0.22 kg a. i./ha. Les expériences étaient étabiles dans un dessin de lot-divisé avec trois répétitions. L\'indice de maladie et le rendement de cosse dues aux deux maladies variant entre 9.7 et 81.2% en l\'année 2003 et entre 19.5 et 65.9% en l\'année 2004 lorsque le rendment des varétés protégées avec fongicide était comparé avec le rendement des variétés non protégées. Application de fongicide était efficace dans la lutte contre les taches à feuille et améliorait également les rendements de cosse au cours de deux saisons. Quelques variétés traitées de fongicide donnaient un rendement de cosse de 1,860 à 2,081 kg/ha qui est plus 2 ou 2½ fois d\'augmentation par rapport aux randements moyens actuels au Ghana. Fondé sur les pertes de tendement élevées, l\'enrayement chimique et les options de plante-hôte résistante sont recommandés pour la lutte contre les deux maladies dans le nord afin d\'améliorer la production d\'arachide. Ghana Journal of Agricultural Science Vol. 40 (1) 2007: pp. 21-27

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 7

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined leaf spots caused 9.7 to 81.2 per cent pod yield loss in 2003.

Taxon
groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
Interactor
Cercospora arachidicolaMycosphaerella arachidise1pathogen
Second interactor
sporidium personatume1pathogen
Outcome
Pod yield lossese0
Value
9.7 to 81.2 per cente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pod yield losses due to both diseases ranged from 9.7 to 81.2 per cent in 2003”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 695–773 · show in text ↑
e1

“Early leaf spot (Cercospora arachidicola) and late leaf spot (sporidium personatum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–83 · show in text ↑
t0

“groundnut”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined leaf spots caused 19.5 to 65.9 per cent pod yield loss in 2004.

Taxon
groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
Interactor
Cercospora arachidicolaMycosphaerella arachidise1pathogen
Second interactor
sporidium personatume1pathogen
Outcome
Pod yield lossese0
Value
19.5 to 65.9 per cente0
Comparator
protected entriese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pod yield losses due to both diseases ranged from 9.7 to 81.2 per cent in 2003, and from 19.5 to 65.9 per cent in 2004 when yield of protected entries was compared with yield of unprotected entries”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 695–892 · show in text ↑
e1

“Early leaf spot (Cercospora arachidicola) and late leaf spot (sporidium personatum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–83 · show in text ↑
t0

“groundnut”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–72 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungicide controlled leaf spots.

Taxon
groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
Treatment
fungicidee0
Interactor
Cercospora arachidicolaMycosphaerella arachidise1pathogen
Second interactor
sporidium personatume1pathogen
Outcome
leaf spotse0
Direction
controllinge0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The application of fungicide was effective in controlling leaf spots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 894–962 · show in text ↑
e1

“Early leaf spot (Cercospora arachidicola) and late leaf spot (sporidium personatum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–83 · show in text ↑
t0

“groundnut”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–72 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungicide improved pod yields across both seasons.

Taxon
groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
Treatment
fungicidee0
Outcome
pod yieldse0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The application of fungicide was effective in controlling leaf spots and improved pod yields across the two seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 894–1009 · show in text ↑
t0

“groundnut”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Some fungicide-treated entries yielded 1,860 to 2,081 kg ha-1, more than twice Ghana average yield.

Taxon
groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
Treatment
fungicidee0
Outcome
pod yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
1,860 to 2,081 kg ha-1e0
Comparator
present average yields in Ghanae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Some entries treated with fungicide produced pod yield of 1,860 to 2,081 kg ha-1, which is more than 2 to 2½-fold increase over present average yields in Ghana”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1011–1170 · show in text ↑
t0

“groundnut”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–72 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Chemical control is recommended to manage both leaf spots.

Taxon
groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
Outcome
chemical controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“chemical control and host-plant resistance options for managing both diseases in the north are recommended”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1204–1310 · show in text ↑
t0

“groundnut”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–72 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Host-plant resistance is recommended to manage both leaf spots.

Taxon
groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
Outcome
host-plant resistance optionse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“chemical control and host-plant resistance options for managing both diseases in the north are recommended”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1204–1310 · show in text ↑
t0

“groundnut”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–72 · show in text ↑

fungicide · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ

53 papers: 40 positive, 13 negative or no effect

39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect
    With fungicide, pruned and nonpruned plots did not differ in yield.

    Effect of Crop Pruning on Sclerotinia Blight of Peanut · 1997 · compared with nonpruned plots treated with these fungicides

    Opposite direction

49 papers more in this group

See all 53 papers →

fungicide · Mycosphaerella arachidis · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 3 positive, 5 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.